lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:35:22 -0700 From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org> CC: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Rhyland Klein <rklein@...dia.com>, linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Mark Gross <mark.gross@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names On 02/25/2014 02:13 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote: >> On 02/20/2014 06:55 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > >>> That's correct. However using con_id to pass this results in different >>> behavior across DT and ACPI. A better way is to export the labeling >>> function so consumers can set meaningful labels themselves. ... > As in tegra30-beaver.dts... > > sdhci@...00000 { > status = "okay"; > cd-gpios = <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(I, 5) GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > wp-gpios = <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(T, 3) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > power-gpios = <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(D, 7) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > bus-width = <4>; > }; > > Instead of passing the GPIOs as index 0,1,2 they are named > and I do admit this has a nice "things are under control" aspect > to it. > > In the ACPI case the con_id is not used for anything. > > So it is basically there to satisfy the habit in some device > tree bindings to name gpio arrays instead of just passing gpios = <...>; > (The latter should be encouraged going forward.) Do you really want to switch from named GPIO lookups to index-based GPIO lookups? Index-based lookups make it much harder to extend the DT binding in a backwards-compatible fashion, especially in the face of optional GPIOs (of which all of CD, WP, power are). If we switch to a single gpios property, I'd assert we should still do named-based lookups using a parallel gpio-names property, just like most (all?) other resource types now support. If we do that, we'll still need the name parameter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists